The
Council approved the demolition, with the proviso that some artefacts be
saved and used 'either in the new development or in an interpretive facility
on the site'. The 'bits' included ten square metres of fluted tiles, the
remaining frieze at the base of the chimney and so on. The company was also
prevented from demolishing until its proposed dense residential/commercial
plans for the site had been approved. The reason given for this was to
minimise the possibility of the incinerator being demolished and the site
remaining undeveloped for an indefinite period. In April 1992 the Council
further reduced any obligations on Meriton Apartments by agreeing to the
possibility of the 'interpretative facility' being 'off the site'. The final
permission to demolish was issued on 6 May 1992, and the building came down
the next day.

Marion Griffin had thought the building
would stand as a monument. It would not have occurred to her to think that
it might not stand at all.

The residents of Pyrmont already had to deal with smoke from the Pyrmont
and Ultimo Powerhouses when Sydney City Council decided to build its new
garbage incinerator at Pyrmont in 1932.

Previously on this site was ‘Tinkers’
Well’, where Aboriginal people continued to camp and gather cockles and
oysters as late as the 1830s; it was one of the landmarks that
disappeared as the cliffs were quarried back.

Designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahoney Griffin, the
incinerator's façade was very detailed for an industrial building. The
design was influenced by ornamental geometry and pre-Columbian Mayan
architecture. The incinerator closed in 1971.

The beauty of the Griffins' design and the sheer engineering achievement
of building on such a steep site inspired 20 years of protest against
its demolition until it was finally approved in 1992.

A Meriton apartment now stands on the site.

“Marion Griffin had thought the building would stand as a monument. It
would not have occurred to her to think that it might not stand at all.”

Not in my Backyard

As the twentieth century progressed, the city's requirements for
garbage disposal grew and in addition to incinerating at Moore Park, a
second incinerator was constructed at Pyrmont in 1910. Tipping and
open-air buring continued at Moore Park, and large amounts were punted
out to sea. This last disposal method had been a case of public disquiet
since before World War I, but was still carried on in the 1920s.

By 1929, disposal problems were acute, and the Council was
receiving widespread public criticism, both because of the tipping in a
residential area and the punting, which led to beach pollution and
public outcry. Land was resumed for extensive enlargements at Pyrmont,
but in the depressed economic conditions of 1929 the Commissioners opted
for financial restraint and tenders were not let. By 1932 Moore Park was
the preferred site for a new incinerator. But there were protests from
local industries and community groups. The state government refused the
council permission; an alternative site had to be found. Finally it was
decided to locate the incinerator at Pyrmont on the site which already
had a destructor. This was an expensive alternative because it required
rock excavations, but it was unlikely to generate much protest, being in
an area which was already heavily industrial.

And so the incinerator came to Pyrmont, an area already
stigmatised in the eyes of many as the city's sink. Its operations added
more pollutants to the atmosphere already degraded by the output of the
city's powerhouses and several large factories.

The Pyrmont incinerator was finally completed in 1936 and
commissioned in 1937. It was designed by Walter Burley Griffin, the
designer of Canberra, and his wife Marion Mahony Griffin: a stunningly
modern cubist-inspired building with richly decorative detailed work
based on Aztec motifs. It was in use until 1971.

Incinerator as Work of Art

When it was built in the 1930s nobody wanted it in their
vicinity, and the Council's papers concerning its construction give no
hint that there was anything significant about its architecture. But a
generation on, when Marion and Walter Burley Griffin were secure in
their reputation among the greats of twentieth-century architects, the
Council was presented with a whole new set of challenges as this
utilitarian urban structure had metamorphosed into 'a prominent
landmark, cleverly sited, sculptural and dramatic . . . architecturally
special . . . a building of international significance'.

The National Trust assessed 'this early modern cubist exercise
having a profusion of rich surface decoration of geometric shapes based
upon ancient Central American architectural details' as 'a brilliant
example of Griffin's mature work'. It showed how 'a mundane urban
function [could] be integrated into the landscape of the city as a work
of art'.

The architects themselves made it clear that they believed in
they had designed more than just an incinerator. Marion Mahony Griffin
observed in 1949 that the Pyrmont incinerator 'will stand, we think, as
an historical record of twentieth-century architecture'. The form and
the ornamental relief were intended to represent the forms of energy
released by the 'smashing of the atom', she claimed, indicating that the
Griffins were aware of the work of physicists in the 1930s at the time
of the construction of the incinerator.

At the time the stack came down, organisations mindful of its
heritage significance were manoeuvring for the building's preservation.
Had the incinerator been built in prestigious Moore Park, as originally
planned, the Council might have had a desirable commercial property on
its hands, with a similar potential for redevelopment as the Burley
Griffin incinerator in Willoughby which was converted into a restaurant.
But although industrial Pyrmont could not compare with Moore Park, by
the time the incinerator was decommissioned in 1971, there were some
signs that the status of the peninsula was changing, and that more than
a narrow group of preservationists might come to see that the building
had been 'cleverly sited'.

What's to be Done with Pyrmont?

Of all the areas of the city which have given rise to varying
answers to the question of 'what is the proper use of inner urban
land?', Pyrmont's response has been the most volatile. Pyrmont was
always staunchly Labour in its voting habits, and back in the 1950s
Labour councils had favoured increased residential development on this
industrial peninsula where the most recent housing to be built was Ways
Terrace, the Council's own project built on land resumed in 1923. The
State government had other ideas, however, and prepared plans in 1965
which permitted most of the peninsula to be industrial. Its City of
Sydney Plan, gazetted in 1971, also favoured industrial development,
while the Council's Strategic Plan of the same year advocated that most
of the peninsula be zoned 'residential'. The Council's plan did not have
the statutory authority of the State plan, but by limiting floor-space
ratios the Council was able to frustrate would-be developers by making
industrial projects uneconomic. The conflicting understandings of how
Pyrmont should develop were well illustrated by the Action Plan for
Pyrmont which the Council commissioned in the early 1970s. The
consultants who undertook this work reported that the area was 'an
inferior residential location' which was a conduit for through traffic
and 'a stopping place for single men'. The numbers of residents had
declined to a mere 2,000 by 1971, which was too small to attract or
justify service infrastructures, while land prices made new residential
developments unlikely. Continued industrial development was predicted as
the only feasible future for the area. At the same time they reported
that the State Planning Authority 'failed to reveal any clear positive
policies', that the Valuer General's Department appeared to be confused,
that the Commonwealth Government had no plans for its holdings on the
peninsula and that, although the Housing Commission wanted inner-city
land, it didn't want to pay Pyrmont prices for it. The future of the
Darling Harbour goods yards were not in doubt, however, as it was
'certain that they will continue to play an important role for the
foreseeable future'.

Such are the hazards of prediction in an area where land use is
uncertain. The goods yards disappeared under the Darling Harbour
Authority's tourist and entertainment complex by the end of the 1980s,
and in 1976, instead of accepting this report on Pyrmont, the Council
commenced its own in-house Ultimo/Pyrmont/Haymarket Plan. This plan,
begun by a Civic Reform Council and adopted by a Labour Council in 1982,
saw a future for the peninsula which included substantial residential
development. Developers were encouraged in this by the offer of bonuses
of increased floor-space ratios in exchange for projects containing a
residential component.

Procrastination and Decay

However, the incinerator site remained a difficult one. The
building was classified by the National Trust, but this listing had no
legal weight behind it, and there was no conservation order placed on it
by the Heritage Council. The City Council had resolved to restore the
north and west facades, as recommended by the National Trust, but did
nothing, and in 1983 the City Planner, John Doran, recommended an
immediate study because the building was decaying rapidly. At this time
the Council was considering the possibility of using the site for
housing and in 1985 resolved to amend the Ultimo/Pyrmont/Haymarket Plan
to zone the site 2(F) which is a mixed zoning category which includes
residential uses. However, the site did not attract proposals for its
use. At the same time the Department of Main Roads' plans for roadways
in the area were in a state of flux, with a proposed high-level bridge
to replace the old Glebe Island Bridge threatening to obstruct the view
from the site to Blackwattle Bay. The Bay, traditionally used by timber,
coal and boat building interests, was gradually becoming de-industrialised
and beginning to provide desired water views.

Unable to provide any clear guidelines, the Council was uncertain
of what could be achieved at the site and in 1986 offered it for sale to
the DMR. These negotiations were dropped however, when a private
company, Balmain Brewery Limited, offered to buy it for $1.1 million.
The Council agreed to $1.35 million, provided that the company would
place a covenant on the contract of sale which ensured restoration or
replication of the incinerator including reconstruction of the chimney,
which they themselves had removed, to an acceptable height'.

By the time development consent was obtained in mid 1987, the
elected Council had been replaced by City Commissioners, who decided
that the covenant could be lifted in view of the fact that consent
contained the condition that a conservation plan be submitted to the
Heritage Council for approval. This was a clear watering down of the
conditions, as the Heritage Council had no preservation plans for the
building and the owners were required merely to address 'the demolition,
or alterations, in whole or in part, of any section of the incinerator',
and 'the desirability of reconstructing the incinerator chimney'. The
proposed development was for a small brewery, a large restaurant/tavern,
incorporated within the restored incinerator structure, and the
Commissioner's urged that this application be speedily processed.
Subsequently, however, the required conservation study carried out by
Colin Crisp of McBean and Crisp Engineering recommended that the details
of the building be carefully recorded and that it be physically
replicated, including the stack. The present building was too far
deteriorated to save. This deterioration, which had been greatly
accelerated by the removal of the roof and chimney in the 1970s, could
be attributed only to the inaction of the owners, the City Council.

The Crisp Report and the opinions of other experts, that the
building was beyond redemption resulted in a mixed response. The
relevant heritage organisations endorsed the idea of replication, as the
best possible realistic option, while angry conservationists argued that
it was being demolished by studied neglect. The new owners, Balmain
Brewery Limited, presumably did not welcome the idea of replicating the
incinerator, and by mid 1988 there was talk of building housing on the
site, which would involve the incinerator's demolition. By early 1989,
restoration 'to a level to be determined', and the erection of a
multistorey office/warehouse/ industrial building was being discussed.
In exchange for retaining part of the incinerator, appropriately
landscaped and commemoratively signed, the company wanted a substantial
increase in the floor-space ratio (FSR) to allow much taller buildings,
arguing that the approaches to the Glebe Island Bridge necessitated the
extra height.

In April 1989, the company's architects, Lawrence Neild &
Partners, maintained that it was 'socially desirable to conserve what
now remains of the important Walter Burley Griffin Incinerator', while
in May they were urging an increase in FSRs because any delay would mean
that work could not begin soon enough to save the incinerator. The
original application for constructing a brewery – a much less ambitious
project than what was now being mooted – was allowed to lapse in June,
and in the second half of 1989, plans were being worked on for a
residential/commercial complex, again preserving part only of the
incinerator, and still requiring higher buildings than the current code
permitted. In August, Balmain Brewery Limited authorised Meriton
Apartments to act for them, and in November 1989 this company lodged a
Development Application for a $52 million 16-level
residential/commercial building, incorporating part of the incinerator
as the shell for a swimming pool. In December, Balmain Brewery Limited,
which had bought the property for $1.35 million from the Council in mid
1987, sold it to Meriton for almost $8 million.

Meriton's proposal met with some resistance from interested
parties, with the Ultimo/Pyrmont Study Residents' Advisory Committee of
the Council wanting to know how the developers intended to deal with
Tinkers Well. This was a heritage item of greater antiquity than the
incinerator, having been the original source of fresh water on the
peninsula, but one which no-one had apparently mentioned up until this
time. The Council asked the company for a Conservation Study,
identifying all items of historical significance. With regard to the
central sticking point, the Heritage Council said it had no objection to
using the incinerator as a swimming pool, but objected to the scale of
the proposed development, arguing that it would not conserve the
heritage significance of the site. The Council's Planning Department
suggested that the mass and scale of the proposed development would in
fact obliterate the most significant natural feature of Pyrmont Point –
the sandstone promontory. It was fairly clear that the permission to
depart so greatly from the present planning controls would not be
granted, and that the argument that permission should be given in
exchange for retaining the incinerator did not carry weight. By now the
Planning Department was not concerned to save the building, if it ever
had been. There was reference to 'the dubious merit' of retaining it in
a fragmentary form, and an opinion that 'to be of relevance the building
should be retained completely'. This option, it was widely agreed, was
no longer viable.

Meriton Apartments withdrew its application for the site. While
it may have been fairly certain that under the current controls the
application would not have succeeded, the real control of planning
within the city had moved away from the Council to the State-appointed
Central Sydney Planning Committee, set up in 1989. Overall planning of a
'City West Urban Strategy', which includes Pyrmont, was taken over by
the State Department of Planning. Although the contents of its regional
environment plan are not yet finalised, and although the gazettal of any
changed planning regulations for the area were probably still some time
away, indications were that more intensive development would be
considered.

In the meantime, Meriton Apartments made a new submission to the
Council not to build, but simply to demolish the incinerator. The
Council asked for documentation on conservation options. The report drew
heavily on previous studies. It argued that because of advanced
deterioration the only conservation option was total reconstruction.
That was of dubious value it claimed, and 'could only have tenuous links
with the continuity of Griffin's original architectural concepts'.

Other interested parties argued that it could be stabilised, and
that conservation was important. These included the Royal Australian
Institute of Architects. The Heritage Council, which had never been
strongly supportive, was now positively inconsistent, argued that the
Institute of Architects' proposal to conserve the entire building was
'essentially responsible, were it not for the state of the building'. It
recommended retaining fragments of the building.

Oil painting by Jane Bennett of the Pyrmont
incinerator in 1991,
shortly before it was demolished.